Posted on 03/27/2002 6:23:59 PM PST by TLBSHOW
Today I have signed into law H.R. 2356, the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002." I believe that this legislation, although far from perfect, will improve the current financing system for Federal campaigns.
The bill reforms our system of financing campaigns in several important ways. First, it will prevent unions and corporations from making unregulated, "soft" money contri-butions -- a legislative step for which I repeatedly have called.
Often, these groups take political action without the consent of their members or shareholders, so that the influence of these groups on elections does not necessarily comport with the actual views of the individuals who comprise these organizations. This prohibition will help to right that imbalance.
Second, this law will raise the decades-old limits on giving imposed on individuals who wish to support the candidate of their choice, thereby advancing my stated principle that election reform should strengthen the role of individual citizens in the political process.
Third, this legislation creates new disclosure requirements and compels speedier compliance with existing ones, which will promote the free and swift flow of information to the public regarding the activities of groups and individuals in the political process.
I long have believed that complete and immediate disclosure of the source of campaign contributions is the best way to reform campaign finance.
These provisions of the bill will go a long way toward fixing some of the most pressing problems in campaign finance today. They will result in an election finance system that encourages greater individual participation, and provides the public more accurate and timely information, than does the present system. All of the American electorate will benefit from these measures to strengthen our democracy.
As a policy matter, I would have preferred a bill that included a provision to protect union members and shareholders from involuntary political activities undertaken by their leadership.
Individuals have a right not to have their money spent in support of candidates or causes with which they disagree, and those rights should be better protected by law. I hope that in the future the Congress and I can work together to remedy this defect of the current financing structure.
This legislation is the culmination of more than 6 years of debate among a vast array of legislators, citizens, and groups. Accordingly, it does not represent the full ideals of any one point of view.
But it does represent progress in this often-contentious area of public policy debate. Taken as a whole, this bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 27, 2002.
True, but NONE of his base supports CFR. Maybe a few McCainites, but that isn't any part of Bush's base.
Perhaps you'd rather vote for someone like Al Gore next time?
You are correct. None of us supports CFR but some of us see more ways to skin this cat. I am sure you have heard the story of the old bull and the young bull on a hill over looking the beautiful females.
The powers not granted to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
-Amendment X
Here's to 50 Republics, governing in unique and diverse ways, under the constraints and protections of the Constitution.
It is a simple and elegant concept that would work if given the chance.
Twenty (20%) of America is ultra conservative and 20% is ultra liberal. Sixty (60%) are somewhere in between.
No one will ever lead this country who governs by either of those extremes and NO ONE can have everything they want.
I don't always agree with my closest friends, nor my family members. It's not a perfect world for any of us. Although President Bush is more conservative than you give him credit for, do you really think anyone should please just 20% of the country or 60%? Contemplate this:
Most Americans wanted CFR (72%).
So, what do we have?
1. Increased contribution amounts, which help Republicans more than Democrats.
2. Made 72% of America happy
3. Freedom of speech will be restored via the Supreme Court.
Seems like a win-win situation for our most intelligent President. He's getting it all while not making 72% of America angry at him. I'd say; "Yes, he knows EXACTLY what he's doing and I'm so very, very proud of him." Once again he has out-smarted the Democrats, McCain and other RINOs.
Good heavens, get a grip or go back to DU. I gather you were in a coma during the Clinton administration.
Hysteria abounds here. You are losing your moorings to reality or haven't lived very long so you have nothing to compare with.
You give yourself away, Basher. No one who ever supported Bush ever calls him Jr. as he is not a Jr. Gore was a junior.
And now some words from your hero, Ronnie.
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.
"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."
Ronald Reagan, from his autobiography, An American Life
Signed the CFR into law. A dem bill. McCain is a RINO.
48,000 more gov't employees Re: Airport Security: What dems wanted
Prescription drug program: Dems Wanted that
Dems education bill and he admitted he did not read it
Amnesty for illegals: What dems want
The infamous p.a.t.r.i.o.t. law. Read section 802 It has no sunset provision
He has not removed some of clinton's people from power in certain agencies
Take off your rose colored glasses, wake up and smell the coffee. Do not try to defend the indefensible. Do not follow any man blindly. Have the decency to admit it when your guy is wrong, otherwise, you are no different than the clinton disciples who defended him no matter how low he sunk. Pres Bush is just another politician ( a clever one to be sure) who is looking to the next election. He is trying to play to every segment of society and that will backfire on him in 2004.
Now, why don't you forget the insults and address the issues presented?
I voted for a leader who had the savvy to outfox the Dems, and the guts to face our enemies overseas.
I didn't vote for your clone. So Sorry.
I didn't vote for Jesus Christ. He didn't want the job.
I am a realist. There are more ways to take a hill that to charge blindly into enemy gunfire. I voted for a savvy politician I trusted to do the best he could with the mess this country is in and the extreme danger we are in.
In 1992 I predicted the WTC bombing and the attack on Washington, with a maybe for Los Angeles within a decade. North Korea has nukes and missiles and we are running our butts off trying to make ABM's work so we can stop paying Clinton's nuclear blackmail to them. And we are in a race against time to get Saddam before he gets nukes to give to terrorists. And if you read the SOTU speech carefully, you will see that Bush knows this.
I'm sorry that my NRA has to spend my bucks to take this bill to SCOTUS to stop this damned DEM mischief meant to undermine our Commander in Chief at a most perilous time in our nation when he is busy getting our ducks in a row to take out Iraq before they gut our entire government.
I'm sorry it offends you that anything anywhere might be deemed just an ounce more worthy of Presidential attention when he is trying to focus the national attention to be ready for Iraq and needs to clear his desk and the news media obsession with Democratic garbage.
The SURVIVAL of D.C. is imperative, whether you understand that or not. Under conditions of war, things get delegated. CFR just got delegated to SCOTUS, and I expect them to do their job.
But who is going to tell the American people what they did? Certainly not the lamestream media or the democrats. We also had republicans voting for this monstrosity - they are keeping their mouth shut too.
Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns.
It's a sorry state when our elected representatives in Washington cannot tell the difference between right or wrong.
Bush is taking the conservative base for granted, but I have news for him in 2004 - I will not forget. The Bush family as far as I'm concerned are one termers.
On the domestic front, just when does he plan to start fighting?
Thanks for sharing. Tell you what. Check back with me on this in six months or so and lets see what you think. My prediction is you wont' even remember what the debate was about and the ad ban part of the bill will be breathing its last breath on the steps of the SC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.